# REHMAN JEO WANGNOO v. RAM CHAND AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 2 S.C.R. 380
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-12-07
- **Case number:** Civil Second Appeal No. 46 of 1975
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rehman-jeo-wangnoo-v-ram-chand-and-ors-7383
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

380
A
REHMAN JEO WANGNOO
v.
RAM CHAND AND ORS.
December 7, 1977
B
rv. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. K. GOSWAMI AND v. D. TULZAPURKAR JJ.]
c
D
E
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966, S. 11(1)(11)
Second Proviso to Explanation, Interpretation of-Whether mandatory for the
courts to comply even in the absence of specific pleading.
Under the second proviso to the Explanation to S. ll(!)(h) of J & K Hou1es
and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 the court before evicting the tenant from part
only of the premises, must satisfy itself after taking the entire evidence to fulfil
the reasonable requirement of the landlord.
The High Court in second appeal held that the trial court as well as the
first appellate court have taken this point into consideration and found that it
would not be feasible to order the eviction of the appellant only from a portion
of the suit premises and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Granting the special leave, allowing it and
remanding the
matter,
the
court.
HELD : The second proviso to the Explanations to S. 11 (I )(h) of the
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 mandates the
court to consider whether partial eviction as contemplated therein should be
ordered or the entire holding should· be directed to be evicted. This aspect,
therefore requires judicial exploration after giving opportunity to both sides to
· lead evidence in this behalf. The court must proceed on the footing that the
absence of a specific pleading under the said proviso does not stand in the way
of the obligation of the court to act in compliance with the mandate of the
statute.
[381 A·B-D]
R. S. Madan v. G. M. Sadiq, 1971, J & K Law reports 260; over-ruled.
Rehman Jeo Wangnoo v. Ram Chand & Ors. Civil Second Appeal No. 46
of 1975, J & K dated 30-9-1975 reversed.
F
CIVIi. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2954 of 1977.
Appeal by special leave from the ·Judgment and Order dated
1-11-1976 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Civil Second
Appeal No. 46/75.
Niren De and Altaf Ahmed for the Petitioner.
Hardyal Hardy and R. P. Sharma for the Respondents.
ORDER
Delay condoned and special leave granted on a point raised by the
appellant under the proviso to the Explanation to s. 11 ( 1) (h) of the
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (for
H
short, the Act) .
The only ground which we consider tenable and which has been
urged by the appellant before us turns on the failure of the courts ot
.
\
REHMAN JEO v. RAM CHAND (Knshna Iyer, J.)
381
fact in recording a finding as contemplated in the proviso to the ExplaA
nation to s. 11(1.) (h) of the Act.
Obviously an error has been committed by the Hi&JI Court in thinking that there is a concurrent finding
of fact under the proviso aforesaid.
The trial court and the first appellate court have really not considered this question on the merits; indeed
evidence itself has not been taken on the score that there has been no
specific plea in that behalf.
We are satisfied that the proviso aforesaid
mandates the court to consider whether partial eviction as contemplated
B
therein. should be ordered or the entire _holding should be directed to
be evicted.
Tiris aspect, therefore, iequfres judicial exploration after
giving 0pportunity to both sides to lead. evidence in this behalf.
We direct the first appellate court to go into the quest.ion as to
whether the reasonable requirement of the landlord may be substantially
sf1.(isfted by evicting the tenant from a p;ut only of the premises as c
cODtemplated in the proviso. If after taking evidence the court is satisfied that the entire house or premises must be vacated to fulfil
the
reasonable requirement of the landlord, the' present order will stand.
If, on the other hand the court finds, as a fact, that partia,J evicti6n
will meet the ends of justice as visualised in 1the proviso, an appropriate
order will be passed on that footing.
The court will take up the case on
file pursuant to this order of remand and confine itse

## Text

380
A
REHMAN JEO WANGNOO
v.
RAM CHAND AND ORS.
December 7, 1977
B
rv. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. K. GOSWAMI AND v. D. TULZAPURKAR JJ.]
c
D
E
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966, S. 11(1)(11)
Second Proviso to Explanation, Interpretation of-Whether mandatory for the
courts to comply even in the absence of specific pleading.
Under the second proviso to the Explanation to S. ll(!)(h) of J & K Hou1es
and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966 the court before evicting the tenant from part
only of the premises, must satisfy itself after taking the entire evidence to fulfil
the reasonable requirement of the landlord.
The High Court in second appeal held that the trial court as well as the
first appellate court have taken this point into consideration and found that it
would not be feasible to order the eviction of the appellant only from a portion
of the suit premises and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Granting the special leave, allowing it and
remanding the
matter,
the
court.
HELD : The second proviso to the Explanations to S. 11 (I )(h) of the
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 mandates the
court to consider whether partial eviction as contemplated therein should be
ordered or the entire holding should· be directed to be evicted. This aspect,
therefore requires judicial exploration after giving opportunity to both sides to
· lead evidence in this behalf. The court must proceed on the footing that the
absence of a specific pleading under the said proviso does not stand in the way
of the obligation of the court to act in compliance with the mandate of the
statute.
[381 A·B-D]
R. S. Madan v. G. M. Sadiq, 1971, J & K Law reports 260; over-ruled.
Rehman Jeo Wangnoo v. Ram Chand & Ors. Civil Second Appeal No. 46
of 1975, J & K dated 30-9-1975 reversed.
F
CIVIi. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2954 of 1977.
Appeal by special leave from the ·Judgment and Order dated
1-11-1976 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Civil Second
Appeal No. 46/75.
Niren De and Altaf Ahmed for the Petitioner.
Hardyal Hardy and R. P. Sharma for the Respondents.
ORDER
Delay condoned and special leave granted on a point raised by the
appellant under the proviso to the Explanation to s. 11 ( 1) (h) of the
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (for
H
short, the Act) .
The only ground which we consider tenable and which has been
urged by the appellant before us turns on the failure of the courts ot
.
\
REHMAN JEO v. RAM CHAND (Knshna Iyer, J.)
381
fact in recording a finding as contemplated in the proviso to the ExplaA
nation to s. 11(1.) (h) of the Act.
Obviously an error has been committed by the Hi&JI Court in thinking that there is a concurrent finding
of fact under the proviso aforesaid.
The trial court and the first appellate court have really not considered this question on the merits; indeed
evidence itself has not been taken on the score that there has been no
specific plea in that behalf.
We are satisfied that the proviso aforesaid
mandates the court to consider whether partial eviction as contemplated
B
therein. should be ordered or the entire _holding should be directed to
be evicted.
Tiris aspect, therefore, iequfres judicial exploration after
giving 0pportunity to both sides to lead. evidence in this behalf.
We direct the first appellate court to go into the quest.ion as to
whether the reasonable requirement of the landlord may be substantially
sf1.(isfted by evicting the tenant from a p;ut only of the premises as c
cODtemplated in the proviso. If after taking evidence the court is satisfied that the entire house or premises must be vacated to fulfil
the
reasonable requirement of the landlord, the' present order will stand.
If, on the other hand the court finds, as a fact, that partia,J evicti6n
will meet the ends of justice as visualised in 1the proviso, an appropriate
order will be passed on that footing.
The court will take up the case on
file pursuant to this order of remand and confine itself to this limited
D
issue, give opportunity to both to lead evidence on this sole question
and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within two months.
The court must proceed on the footing that the absence of a specific
pleading under the said proviso does not stand in tile way of the obligation of the> court to act in compliance with. the mandate of the statute.
There will be no order as to costs in this court.
S.R.
Appeal allowed and
case remanded.